Nathan Myhrvold's “simple guide” to his 110-page NEOWISE asteroid criticisms is 5,400 words, not including refs http://bit.ly/1WklGWJ
-
-
Replying to @kchangnyt
And a simple way to see how *wildly* wrong that guy is, just see the three verifiable measures - https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mpml/conversations/messages/32032 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FaizaFaria
NEOWISE is wildly wrong at times too. Would be amazing if it weren’t. It’s assuming spherical asteroids + fudge factors.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt
"Is" and "Must be" are not the same thing. When you say "is wildly wrong", that implies fact. Example please?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FaizaFaria
Even the NEOWISE error estimates are 10% at 1 sigma. Their claim is that half of the time error is > 10%.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt
1 sigma uncertainty of 10% means 68% of the time (1 sigma) reality will be within 10% of measurement, so 32% of the time >10%.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @kchangnyt
Larger point is NEOWISE paper says 32% of the time >10% uncertainty. Your report headline: "NASA does not know".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
1. I don’t write headlines. 2. Nathan is indeed claiming much higher errors (Table 6), so it’s accurate. (“A Critic Says…”)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.